No Utopia

The utopian idea of removing suffering and its origins by progressing towards a society based upon idealized morals denies the reality of life as a continuum. It does this by splitting life into two sides, where one side is joy and pleasure and the other is struggle and pain. When one steps outside modern society and observes the order of function and process of death and renewal, it becomes clear that nature as it exists apart from any moral impositions supplied by humanity operates in beautiful design in a harmony of balance and purpose. This is because nature is free from fear of suffering and as a result it is able to function in such a manner that it avoids the problems met by those who wish to exercise absolute moral ideals on human society.

Peter Singer is a proponent of this utopian division of life. In "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" he argues that if it is within one’s power to prevent a bad thing from occurring, we should do so, as long as it does not require any significant sacrifice of one’s own moral worth. He assumes that suffering and death by way of starvation, homelessness, and medical care are bad, and that those who are in positions to help others in these conditions should do so, as long as their own livelihood is not threatened. Such people in positions to help should give away any goods that are not essential to their own needs, in order to help others who are less off, according to Singer. He rules out any personal feelings when it comes to moral obligation in his response to objections that his idea demands too much sacrifice, and states that people would only be required to make this sacrifice when a problem arises. Singer makes it clear that he desires a world where pain and struggle do not exist, a desire that is contradictory to the nature of existence, which places upon us a necessary burden of struggle towards achievement, in turn, granting our lives with meaning rather than a placid state of uninterrupted comfort.

There will always be suffering. When Singer states that people should only have to sacrifice for others when a problem arises, he is drowning in a sea of illusions. There is no Utopia. It is our condition that we suffer in this life, and it should be so, as a life of non-suffering would eventually become even more miserable through its boredom and complacency, where ambition and motivation suffocate and the triumph of the human sprit along with it. As his ultimate goal seems to be a world of this sort, he wishes for a life that can never be, even if his ideal was somehow put into practice. Like all Utopians, Singer hates the reality of mortality and seeks to construct a fantasy world where any signs of death and pain are eliminated. But it is death and pain that supply substance and aspiration to our lives, as without the struggle the accomplishment will always be less rewarding, and our lives much less fulfilling.

In response to Singer’s position, John Arthur appeals to rights and entitlements, stating that things people deserve are equal in importance to any moral obligations to others. Arthur, referring to Singer’s position as the "greater moral evil principle", disagrees with Singer, suggesting that people would not be motivated to work as much or as hard for the benefit of strangers, and they would ultimately fail to live up to the ideal. He sees nothing changing in the actions of people in response to the suffering of others except the gaining of a different motivation. This is why Arthur believes that what people are entitled to should be included as part of the ideal moral code. For Arthur, it is unrealistic to assume that people will behave more selfless than they are, and that they will be more objective, informed, and unbiased than they are. In this, it seems reasonable to hold Arthur’s position as the more practical of the two approaches, and therefore, the more realistic and useful.

It can safely be said, upon observations of the actions of others and ourselves, that when a person is obligated towards some action, they perform that action, if at all, with a sort of reluctance, as opposed to when they perform an action that, while being beneficial to another, is performed of their own accord, free of any expectations or obligations. This sort of action is the most genuine and less selfish kind since, even though every action performed by an individual is not done without some element of self-interest, actions carried out by one’s own choice originate from a place within that is less distorted and closer to sincerity of intent. Singer seems more concerned with actions of obligation than with sincerity of intent, and indeed his very stance may require a dependency on this when taking into consideration the high level of self-interest in most people. Arthur, on the other hand, establishes an understanding of human action with a bit more clarity, and places an emphasis on genuine behavior that Singer disregards.

Though Arthur asserts a position that acknowledges the practicalities of social conditions and realities of human behavioral tendencies in a manner that Singer neglects, both advocate some method of a moral code directed towards eliminating as much strife as possible, in accordance with their particular ideas. Any ideal that favors the establishment of moral absolutes is working against the challenges of life that keep us striving towards higher achievement. They champion the conservation of all life and a world of a linear state of comfort. There is beautiful necessity in struggle, suffering, and death, and to condemn these components as "evil" and "bad" is to fail to view life as a journey towards greater accomplishment among those who have the capabilities to transcend their environmental and circumstantial conditions, continually establishing higher standards for future generations. Utopians hate this as they view inequality as a type of unnecessary suffering, and so wish for a world where everyone has the same advantages, which would be suffering indeed for those who are capable of rising above the mediocre.

Neither Arthur nor Singer seems to be concerned with root causes of "evils" such as famine. Distorted views of equality obscure their thoughts to addressing the real problems, and like most other moral idealists, they seek only to bandage the wounds of the damage that has already been done, and will continue to be done as long as symptoms are treated rather than causes. Overpopulation and corrupt government are the two primary causes of famine, but because those problems lead to challenges in the form of system overhaul and recognizing the differences between individual quality, these issues are sidestepped or paid lip-service yet almost no one addresses them in any real way that can lead to pragmatic solutions. Rather than aiming to eliminate sufferings in the world, and therefore gravitating to a life of entropy, the ideal state as one functioning in accordance with the reality of nature is to acknowledge the necessary role of struggle in life, and in that recognition, work towards disallowing these obstacles to disrupt the ultimate goals and values for a society. This approach removes focus on the negativity of extinguishment and emphasizes the positivity of ascendency, or what can be achieved by humanity despite the disadvantages of the natural condition.

Focusing on elimination of famine, or of any other "evil" that is the result of a larger problem, is like treating symptoms of a disease rather than the root cause of the disease itself. It does nothing to address the reasons why there exists something like famine in the first place. All of the bleeding hearts and disproportionate compassion in the world cannot hold substance in the larger view, when neglecting the fact that there are too many people, we have expanded far beyond our means for sustainability, and in relation to this issue, our political foundations are corrupt the world over. Only when these matters are significantly addressed, with clarity of thought and balanced emotion, will there ever be any true progress in the way of something like famine relief.

There are no absolutes or universals in the realm of morality. All events and conditions are purely circumstantial, and each case must be addressed as such. Certainly, there are moments and situations in which it is reasonable and even heroic to assist others in need, but there will always be mass suffering in the world, because it is a necessary condition of human existence. When one takes it upon himself to help others who are in pain, it must always be with the understanding that our lot in life is one of endless struggle and misery, and all humans in the world working diligently against this still could not remove it as a truth of our lives. Embracing this condition, and functioning in accordance with it, is the way towards achievements of a true and meaningful quality, because doing so works in harmony with nature, rather than some fantasy of a painless world.

Allen Donaldson 11-29-06